A/HRC/30/29 Annex [English only] Follow-up information on cases of reprisal included in previous reports 1. China 1. In my previous report, reference was made to Cao Shunli, who had been campaigning for transparency and greater participation of civil society in the universal periodic review process of China and reportedly as a result was arrested, detained and denied medical treatment resulting in her death on 14 March 2014 (A/HRC/27/38, paras. 17-19). In his report of 10 June 2015, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association regretted not having received a response from the Government to the joint communication sent on 4 March 2014 (A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, paras. 240-244). The Rapporteur reiterated his utmost concern that the death of Ms. Cao might have been a reprisal for her continued cooperation with the United Nations in the field of human rights and urged the authorities to inform him of the results of the investigations of the circumstances leading to Ms. Cao’s death, as soon as possible (ibid.). At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government. 2. Malaysia 2.The Coalition of Malaysian Non-Governmental Organizations was discussed in my previous report in relation to its engagement with the universal periodic review process of the country (A/HRC/27/38, para. 28). The Government of Malaysia by letter of 9 September 2014 reaffirmed its continuous support and commitment to the universal periodic review process and stated that all relevant stakeholders had been able to freely participate in Malaysia’s review without any restrictions. According to the Government, the allegations of the Coalition were “utterly baseless” (A/HRC/28/85, case MYS 1/2014). In its press statement issued on 8 January 2014, the Malaysian Secretary-General of the Ministry of Home Affairs had not declared the Coalition illegal or unlawful but rather highlighted that it was not registered under the Societies Act 1996. The Government confirmed that no investigation and judicial or other inquiries were carried out in relation to the Coalition as no report by or against the Coalition were lodged with the relevant authorities (ibid.). The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in his report of 4 March 2015, while encouraged by the fact that the Coaltion was no longer considered illegal, reiterated his grave concern at the apparent acts of reprisal against them (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1, para. 280). 3. Russian Federation 3.The “Law on Non-commercial Organizations which Carry Functions of Foreign Agents” and allegations of reprisals against the Anti-Discrimination Center Memorial via that law were mentioned in my previous report (A/HRC/27/38, para. 43). On 20 June 2014, mandate holders raised further concerns over the enforcement of, and amendments to, the Law and the Memorial with the Government (A/HRC/28/85, case RUS 5/2014). On 8 April 2014, the Saint Petersburg Court upheld that the Memorial was performing functions of a “foreign agent”, reportedly for submitting information on police actions to the Committee against Torture. The Memorial refused to register as such and decided to dissolve its structure and continue its activities without registration. On 4 June 2014, the Duma voted in favour of amending the Law, reportedly allowing the Ministry of Justice to register, at its own initiative and without a court decision, non-commercial organizations as “foreign agents” (ibid.). In its response dated 25 August 2014, the Government explained the procedures followed in the case of the Memorial and indicated that such registration should not be 16/18 GE.15-13885 (C)